Electrician Expert Statement - Recessed light Transformers

[JohnW2]

I'm not clear as to where you would like to draw a line

I suppose it is definition by democracy and there is no solution but it is not helped these days by the attitude that we should not point out people's shortcomings. Therefore they do not know they are wrong so never correct the situation so ignorance IS bliss.

True, but I suppose we're talking about how one defines a 'shortcoming'. Apart from the necessary introduction of new words (to deal with new technologies etc.), evolution of language requires that we go through a period during which increasing numbers of people are using words 'incorrectly' as far as the dictionaries are concerned and/or newly-invented words which aren't even in the dictionaries. Are those all 'shortcomings' which we should try to 'educate people' out of (and thereby attempt to prevent evolution of language)?

It is just irritating for the rest of us.

Indeed, some new uses of words (like "lamp" and "continuity testing") irritate me no end, but I realise that I'm not going to be able to do anything to change it!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

True, but I suppose we're talking about how one defines a 'shortcoming'.

Fault?

Apart from the necessary introduction of new words (to deal with new technologies etc.), evolution of language requires that we go through a period during which increasing numbers of people are using words 'incorrectly' as far as the dictionaries are concerned and/or newly-invented words which aren't even in the dictionaries.

Evolution of language may be inevitable but that does not mean it is a good thing.

Are those all 'shortcomings' which we should try to 'educate people' out of (and thereby attempt to prevent evolution of language)?

If they are mistakes due to ignorance then surely we should.

It is just irritating for the rest of us.

Indeed, some new uses of words (like "lamp" and "continuity testing") irritate me no end, but I realise that I'm not going to be able to do anything to change it!

It sounds as if you agree with me, after all.

 

[JohnW2]

Are those all 'shortcomings' which we should try to 'educate people' out of (and thereby attempt to prevent evolution of language)?

If they are mistakes due to ignorance then surely we should.

In cases like the prostate/prostrate one, I essentially agree - most people who use the wrong word have simply misunderstood what word they should be using, and presumably would use the correct word if they were 'educated'. However, in very many cases it's not that straightforward. As I said, if one regarded every deviation from use of words 'per current dictionary' as being 'a mistake due to ignorance', which needed to be corrected, one would essentially be trying to stop language evolving. Maybe that's what you would like - do you think we should still be speaking Chaucer's English?

It is just irritating for the rest of us.

Indeed, some new uses of words (like "lamp" and "continuity testing") irritate me no end, but I realise that I'm not going to be able to do anything to change it!

It sounds as if you agree with me, after all.

I'm not sure I understand the "after all". I think/hope that my position about those two words/phrases has always been the same, as has been my (reluctant in some cases) acceptance that the changes are never going to be reversed. I'm equally irritated by use of 'transformer' (unqualified) to refer to an SMPS, although I have no great problem with 'electronic transformer' (just as I don't with 'electronic toothbrush', 'electronic document', 'electronic cigarette' etc.).

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

if one regarded every deviation from use of words 'per current dictionary' as being 'a mistake due to ignorance', which needed to be corrected, one would essentially be trying to stop language evolving. Maybe that's what you would like - do you think we should still be speaking Chaucer's English?

I am not sure what language evolving really entails other than the wrong usage of words becoming so normal that no one actually remembers what it originally meant.
I cannot see how this is a good thing even if inevitable and irreversible.

Were we still speaking Chaucer's English this discussion would not be happening.

I'm not sure I understand the "after all".

I thought you disagreed with pointing out people's faults.

I think/hope that my position about those two words/phrases has always been the same, as has been my (reluctant in some cases) acceptance that the changes are never going to be reversed. I'm equally irritated by use of 'transformer' (unqualified) to refer to an SMPS, although I have no great problem with 'electronic transformer'

Yes but my position regarding 'transformer' is that it is the original naming which was the error by using a word which so vaguely means 'something which changes itself or something else'.

Did they originally use 'voltage transformer' or similar and over the years the 'voltage' has been dropped and also describing its components rather than limiting the description to the function?

As I have said regarding a television which really is a television set no longer containing valves and a CRT.
Strictly speaking, you cannot really have A television but it is difficult to find a definition of the actual two words now; instead they all describe the device because the word has evolved.
How many people do you think know what it really means?

 

[JohnW2]

I am not sure what language evolving really entails other than the wrong usage of words becoming so normal that no one actually remembers what it originally meant.

We seem to be agreeing - as I said, I think that's the only way that language can evolve. If everyone always stuck strictly to current dictionary definitions, I can't see how there could be any evolution - only the (necessary) addition of new words and/when required because of changing technologies etc.

I cannot see how this is a good thing even if inevitable and irreversible.

Ah - well that's really an academic and philosophical debate - but I think that many of the relevant 'experts' would probably disagree with you, believing that evolution of language is a good and 'healthy' thing. Let's face it, if no evolution of language had never occurred, it would certainly not be anything recognisable as 'English' that we were speaking today.

I'm not sure I understand the "after all".

I thought you disagreed with pointing out people's faults.

I'm not sure how you got to that from what I wrote. I merely pointed out that I get irritated by the 'new' uses of things like "lamp" and "continuity testing", but that I accepted that nothing I could do would change it. Even though I don't much like what has happened, I'm certainly not going to "point out that it is a fault" when people use those words/phrases with their 'new' meanings - do you think I should (even though dictionaries would indicate that they were not 'faults' - at least for 'lamp')??

Yes but my position regarding 'transformer' is that it is the original naming which was the error by using a word which so vaguely means 'something which changes itself or something else'. Did they originally use 'voltage transformer' or similar and over the years the 'voltage' has been dropped and also describing its components rather than limiting the description to the function?

I don't know - but could you not say exactly the same about words like 'coil', 'choke', 'valve', 'filter', 'conductor', 'switch', 'battery', 'socket', 'plug', 'cable', 'terminal' etc. etc. etc. - all of which had other meanings before they came to be used to have specific meanings in relation to electricity/electronics?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Let's face it, if no evolution of language had never occurred, it would certainly not be anything recognisable as 'English' that we were speaking today.

It wouldn't matter though, would it?
Why is how we now actually speak better?

Even though I don't much like what has happened, I'm certainly not going to "point out that it is a fault" when people use those words/phrases with their 'new' meanings - do you think I should (even though dictionaries would indicate that they were not 'faults' - at least for 'lamp')??

No but then it is no longer a fault.
I am sure you have defended at least one poster with very bad English when it was pointed out by another.

I don't know - but could you not say exactly the same about words like 'coil', 'choke', 'valve', 'filter', 'conductor', 'switch', 'battery', 'socket', 'plug', 'cable', 'terminal' etc. etc. etc. - all of which had other meanings before they came to be used to have specific meanings in relation to electricity/electronics?

That's the point; it's not that 'transformer' meant or means something else (nearly all English words mean more than one thing), it doesn't, but some people refuse to accept (because its components were included in the description) that something which does the same is NOT a rtansformer.

 

[Taylortwocities]

Well, I just popped out for a few days (to get some half-term sunshine) and what do I find?
WINSTON has been indulging in THOUGHT CRIME again.
And six pages of it too.

As I'm still in holiday mood I feel it is time to introduce a bit of levity to the thread

( levity
ˈlɛvɪti
noun
the treatment of a serious matter with humour or lack of due respect. )

The whole definition thing draws me to I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue and the fabulous Uxbridge English Dictionary. This provides a record of the new meanings of words. here's a few electrical(ish) definitions. It opens with Winston's bête noire..

Transformer - beauty makeover
Saxophones: A large bag full of telecommunication devices
Eddy current- Mr Cochran before he died
Dipole- an aerial for receiving BBC Wales
Ferranti- elderly female relative with a moustache
Mega ohm- where a very wealthy resistor may live
Resistor: If it's the SWMBO you may well not
Dielectric - Welsh Electrician
Inductance: What might happen if a mallard swallows a fish or other small animal that's still alive
Diode : A welsh poem
Kilocycle- a dangerous push bike
Battery- fish from the chip shop
Anode - short poem
Pentode - frog that can write.
Negative feedback- to vomit

 

[JohnW2]

Let's face it, if no evolution of language had never occurred, it would certainly not be anything recognisable as 'English' that we were speaking today.

It wouldn't matter though, would it? Why is how we now actually speak better?

As I said, that's a matter for the linguists, academics and philosophers to debate; I can see the scope for varying opinions.

Even though I don't much like what has happened, I'm certainly not going to "point out that it is a fault" when people use those words/phrases with their 'new' meanings - do you think I should (even though dictionaries would indicate that they were not 'faults' - at least for 'lamp')??

No but then it is no longer a fault.

I think the 'fault' here is in those dictionaries which present the 'new' meaning of "lamp" as if it were in common usage (which, IMO, it isn't). If they want to include the new meaning, IMO they should indicate that, at least for the time being, it is a 'specialised' use of the word in the electrical industry.

I am sure you have defended at least one poster with very bad English when it was pointed out by another.

I'm sure I have, but I think you are ignoring context. This is a DIY Electrics forum, and people come here to get answers to electrical questions. Provided that the language of their question is clear enough to be understood (even if they talk of "light bulbs", "plug sockets", "plug tops", "the breakers in the fuse box" or whatever) I think that at least the initial responses should attempt to address the question they are asking (or, if necessary, seek clarification about the question). What I have criticised is when the very first responses to a question (particularly to a new member) consist of criticisms of the language, punctuation, formatting or the OP's ability to embed images etc. etc., without even attempting to answer the question (or seek clarification about it). It may often be appropriate to also 'point out' to an OP that incorrect terminology has been used, by way of 'education', but hopefully in the manner that I sometimes do it, rather than the approach of some others!

... but some people refuse to accept (because its components were included in the description) that something which does the same is NOT a rtansformer.

Hmmm. I'm not sure about that. Although the original meaning (and a meaning which still persists) was a vague one relating to "anything which transforms", it was taken over as an electrical term and, for very many decades had a very specific (electrical) meaning, which is what still appears in many dictionaries. To then extend the meaning to other electrical items (which don't correspond to most dictionary definitions), on the grounds that the item still complies with the original, 'pre-electricity', meaning is, IMO, just asking for confusion. Apart from anything else, it is forcing us to now use the term "wirewound transformer" (or somesuch) if we want to talk unambiguously about something which, just a few decades ago (and still today, as far as many dictionaries are concerned), would have been unambiguously described as just "a transformer".

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I would say that's really rather different, since it's just the case of an error/ misunderstanding on the part of many people,

So was using "electrocute" to man a non-fatal electric shock.

So was using "Mayoress" to mean a female Mayor.

So was inventing the word "chairperson".

 

[JohnW2]

Well, I just popped out for a few days (to get some half-term sunshine) and what do I find?

Welcome home - I hope you had a great time!

WINSTON has been indulging in THOUGHT CRIME again. ... And six pages of it too.

To be fair, although (inevitably!) it was winston who started/precipitated it, it's really been the rest (few!) of us who have been responsible for most of the pages of perpetuation. I actually find some it it quite interesting, but it clearly should not be happening in an 'Electrics' forum

I'm still in holiday mood I feel it is time to introduce a bit of levity to the thread

... and there's plenty more like that, where that came from!!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I would say that's really rather different, since it's just the case of an error/ misunderstanding on the part of many people,

So was using "electrocute" to man a non-fatal electric shock.

I agree.

So was using "Mayoress" to mean a female Mayor.

Probably, at least partially. As we've discussed, that meaning is acceptable to at least some dictionaries, and I don't know how long that's been the case.

So was inventing the word "chairperson".

That was primarily due to something which is a whole different subject!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Apart from the necessary introduction of new words (to deal with new technologies etc.), evolution of language requires that we go through a period during which increasing numbers of people are using words 'incorrectly' as far as the dictionaries are concerned and/or newly-invented words which aren't even in the dictionaries. Are those all 'shortcomings' which we should try to 'educate people' out of (and thereby attempt to prevent evolution of language)?

Firstly, it should not be a democracy. Ignorant destruction and defacement of the language is unacceptable, and it does not become more acceptable just because it becomes widespread.

The very first person to say "Mayoress" when he was referring to a female Mayor was wrong. Plan, flat-out wrong. So unless you want the dictionaries to admit new words, or new redefinitions of existing words, just because 1 person dreams it up then you have to have them oppose it when more than 1 person starts using it. In just the same way that no matter how many people "decide" that 2 + 2 = 5, it isn't, the word for a female Mayor was not, and never could be "Mayoress". And allowing that to happen isn't democracy, it's anarchy.

Indeed, some new uses of words (like "lamp" and "continuity testing") irritate me no end, but I realise that I'm not going to be able to do anything to change it!

Indeed not.

But you can tell them they are wrong at every opportunity.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

We seem to be agreeing - as I said, I think that's the only way that language can evolve. If everyone always stuck strictly to current dictionary definitions, I can't see how there could be any evolution - only the (necessary) addition of new words and/when required because of changing technologies etc.

What would be wrong with that?

Ah - well that's really an academic and philosophical debate - but I think that many of the relevant 'experts' would probably disagree with you, believing that evolution of language is a good and 'healthy' thing.

I would like to see a reasoned explanation from such an expert why pandering to ignorance and allowing erroneous use to become established is a good and healthy thing.

Let's face it, if no evolution of language had never occurred, it would certainly not be anything recognisable as 'English' that we were speaking today.

What would be wrong with that?

 

[JohnW2]

Firstly, it should not be a democracy. Ignorant destruction and defacement of the language is unacceptable, and it does not become more acceptable just because it becomes widespread. ... The very first person to say "Mayoress" when he was referring to a female Mayor was wrong. Plan, flat-out wrong.

I realise, and accept, that such is one view, but do I take it that you are against any 'evolution' of language? As I've said, it is very difficult to see how any evolution can ever happen unless a 'very first person', followed by many others, starts using a word in a sense which is "Plan (sic!), flat-out wrong" in terms of the current dictionaries.

Indeed, some new uses of words (like "lamp" and "continuity testing") irritate me no end, but I realise that I'm not going to be able to do anything to change it!

Indeed not. ... But you can tell them they are wrong at every opportunity.

As far as I am concerned, life is too short to waste time telling people that they are wrong "at every opportunity" when I know full well that my repeated efforts will achieve/change nothing. I would get no satisfaction from that, but maybe you would.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No but then it is no longer a fault.

I think the 'fault' here is in those dictionaries which present the 'new' meaning of "lamp" as if it were in common usage (which, IMO, it isn't). If they want to include the new meaning, IMO they should indicate that, at least for the time being, it is a 'specialised' use of the word in the electrical industry.[/quote]
I actually have no idea for how long "lamp" has been the "specialised" (aka "technically correct"?) term.

I do know that the First Edition of the Wiring Regulations contained this:

Arc lamps should always be guarded by proper
lanterns to prevent danger from falling incandescent pieces
of carbon, and from ascending sparks. Their globes should
be protected with wire netting.
The lanterns, and all parts which are to be handled,
should be insulated from the circuit.

So at least 132 years ago "lamp" did not mean "luminaire", or refer to a complete item of lighting equipment.

Also, consider this:

Given its name, what part of this is it supposed to shade?

Why isn't it called a bulbshade?

What I have criticised is when the very first responses to a question (particularly to a new member) consist of criticisms of the language, punctuation, formatting

Sometimes it is the right thing to do.

This was somebody's first post here:

Hello i wonder if you can help me please what ive got is my back room on 2.5mm cable ring circuit and it runs 4 sockets on a 16a MCB front room is the same runs 3 sockets on a 16a MCB the kitchen is also the same which runs 5 double sockets on a 16a MCB and the oven is on a 16a MCB on a 6mm cable now heres my problem ive only got a single 2.5 mm cable on a 16a MCB and this is the only area i have not upgraded yet it runs through an inline 13a fuse which is in the house it runs washing machine and chest freezer i also have a circular saw induction motor which takes about 300w also got small bandsaw which takes about 100w and a pilar drill which takes about 100w now here comes the hard bit got a compressor which is 50 years old with an induction motor which can run up to 200 psi it draws 1500w but it kicks in at 22a so obviously the 16a MCB trips if i reset the 16a MCB compressor will fire up im considering putting 2x 2.5mm or 3 2.5mm cables as ive got about 50m of this cable left ovrer but if im better putting 6mm or 10mm through i dont mind buying some to go through the house and then an armoured 6mm or 10mm cable running on a 32a MCB to the garage the length from the meter cupboard to the outside wall is 34ft including going round corners ouside is about 38ft so i was considering leaving the washing machine and the freezer on 2.5mm and just running the 32a for the compressor and my saws so the garage can be isolated when not in use i only mention what i have in the house not to confuse anyone but i always run on the safe side and i dont want to takea spur off any of the rooms ive been a commercial fitter for 30 years and thats why i always go on the safe side only been in house 3.5 years been using saws to renovate now want to sort outside out so which is the
best option please

or the OP's ability to embed images

As for that, I'll remind you that you are free at any time to put forward a logical explanation of why someone could understand and accomplish steps 1 - 8 in the process, but be unable to understand or accomplish steps 9 - 11.